Advitica

Well-being and prosperity

Ok,
I'm probably not much better at this than you. But let's get started with a defintion

1. The act of reconciling, or the state of being reconciled; reconcilenment; restoration to harmony; renewal of friendship. 

2. Reduction to congruence or consistency; removal of inconsistency; harmony. 

After a serious fight or engagement, you may want to settle your differences, without necesarily conceding ground. This could be with your parents or with someone else you know. It might be useful if there has been a serious breach of trust by either or both parties and escalation of hostility has failed to resolve anything. It may even be that you perceive that you enemy has more things planned. Thing is, that any battle costs time, energy and resources, so perhaps reconciliation is to minimize the expendeture of resources on your part and perhaps too the counter-party involved.

I could probably write a whole eBook on this topic alone, so lets keep it brief and to the point.

Rules
Both parties agree on a set of rules such as:

Each Party can describe the way they feel
If one party makes a factual error, the other party is not permitted to ???correct??? the mistake
Neither party may pass judgment on the other party
The result is intended to understand the other party???s position and it will not result in anyone being right or wrong.

One more rule that both parties must agree to, What either party says about the way they feel must be kept in confidence ??? by that I mean neither party should disclose the other party???s feelings to friends or publicly via any method but if one party is under 18 then the exception to non-disclosure would be someone that the minor trusts who is looking after the minor's interests. Still, have common sense in your discussions.

Remember, however, if you are dealing with a devious parent then they may still try and slip in a few accusations or guilt trips. 
 

so if you say i'm a rainbow alien from neptune i can't correct you?



That???s correct. If you argue with my belief that you are a rainbow alien from Neptune then it may appear to me that you are setting up a defense to argue that in fact no harm was done, since you don???t come from Neptune. This defeats the process of reconciliation since you are setting up defenses for action taken, then I would get angry that you are avoiding, denying or diluting the issue about how I felt.

A: ???I was scared that you were going to abduct me and take me back to Neptune, since I thought you were a rainbow alien???
B: ???Don???t be ridiculous, because I am NOT a rainbow alien ??? they don???t exist!???

Alternatives to consider in responding to that does not involve arguing over the facts might include
Sympathetic : ???I feel sad that you were scared??? (you experience emotion) 
Empathetic: ???I can see why you felt scared??? (you understand the emotion but don???t necessarily feel it)
Neither: ???I don???t see why that is scary for you??? (you don???t understand why that was scary)

If you ask a question like ???do you really believe that I???m an alien from Neptune???? might get an answer like ???at the time I did??? so it still hasn???t addressed the fear I had of being abducted by you, the (alleged) rainbow alien from Neptune. Just asking questions wouldn???t actually resolve the issue about how I felt. Whether the threat of being abducted by an alien was real or not, I am stating that is exactly what I perceived and felt at the time.

Expected Outcomes
It may not resolve anything. That's not the point. Its purpose is to remove hostility from the situation. It may be that after hostility is resolved, then in-roads can be made. Sometimes it's the case and sometimes not.

Now if you need to reconcile with your parents, you might want to use some tact, so maybe think about how to approach the matter "I want to talk about this without arguing" or "Lets talk but not if you are going to keep blaming me for what happend" 

Background Information

???Reconciliation -- patisaraniya-kamma -- means a return to amicability, and that requires more than forgiveness. It requires the reestablishing of trust. If I deny responsibility for my actions, or maintain that I did no wrong, there's no way we can be reconciled. Similarly, if I insist that your feelings don't matter, or that you have no right to hold me to your standards of right and wrong, you won't trust me not to hurt you again. To regain your trust, I have to show my respect for you and for our mutual standards of what is and is not acceptable behavior; to admit that I hurt you and that I was wrong to do so; and to promise to exercise restraint in the future. At the same time, you have to inspire my trust, too, in the respectful way you conduct the process of reconciliation. Only then can our friendship regain a solid footing.???


 

???In addition to providing these incentives for honestly admitting misbehavior, the Buddha blocked the paths to denial. Modern sociologists have identified five basic strategies that people use to avoid accepting blame when they've caused harm, and it's noteworthy that the Pali teaching on moral responsibility serves to undercut all five. 
The strategies are: 
to deny responsibility, 
to deny that harm was actually done, 
to deny the worth of the victim, to attack the accuser, 
and to claim that they were acting in the service of a higher cause. 
The Pali responses to these strategies are: 
(1) We are always responsible for our conscious choices. 
(2) We should always put ourselves in the other person's place..... 
(3) All beings are worthy of respect. 
(4) We should regard those who point out our faults as if they were pointing out treasure. (Monks, in fact, are required not to show disrespect to people who criticize them, even if they don't plan to abide by the criticism.) 
(5) There are no -- repeat, no -- higher purposes that excuse breaking the basic precepts of ethical behavior.
In setting out these standards, the Buddha created a context of values that encourages both parties entering into a reconciliation to employ right speech and to engage in the honest, responsible self-reflection basic to all Dhamma practice. In this way, standards of right and wrong behavior, instead of being oppressive or petty, engender deep and long-lasting trust. In addition to creating the external harmony conducive to Dhamma practice, the process of reconciliation thus also becomes an opportunity for inner growth.
The Buddha admitted that not all disputes can be reconciled. There are times when one or both parties are unwilling to exercise the honesty and restraint that true reconciliation requires. Even then, though, forgiveness is still an option. This is why the distinction between reconciliation and forgiveness is so important. It encourages us not to settle for mere forgiveness when the genuine healing of right reconciliation is possible; and it allows us to be generous with our forgiveness even when it is not.???
(reference: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ation.html)